REASONS: Eve replies to Paul Varnell

It seems to me that a) someone could have multiple, overlapping reasons for holding one public-policy view over another, and could cite or emphasize those most likely to win public approval, without being disingenuous (as long as he really believed the reasons he cited)--e.g. those whose opposition to the death penalty is primarily motivated by religion might nonetheless highlight the possibility of executing the innocent; and b) many threads of "the Judeo-Christian tradition" hold that God's law isn't arbitrary, and usually conduces to human happiness, thus it would be odd if senators believed that God randomly mandated marriage between a man and a woman even though it had deleterious social effects. Anyway, this isn't a defense of any particular senator or staffer or whatever, because goodness knows I don't know how those people think. It's just a defense of the fact that people who have religious reasons for any policy (not just opposing ssm) might also have, and publicly emphasize, "secular" reasons. Nonetheless, an interesting piece.
posted by Eve at 10:32 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home